I have about $100 in giftcards to Amazon from the holidays, so I am considering getting a ColorChecker Passport. My question is, how well does profiling your camera really work. Getting accurate color (on profiled monitors) hasn't exactly been my strong suit. And I would like to be able to get there for some studio, portrait and even landscape shots. I know accurate isn't always pleasing, but I feel it would give you a good start to put a "look" on top of, ala the motion picture industry.

Also, if you do profile your camera, do you need to do it with each lens, or just once per camera?

I'm working with a Nikon D7000, Fuji X10, and Yashicamat EM (Trying Portra at the minute, but thinking I prefer slide films to negatives) in Adobe PS CS5. Even more cameras if I decide to profile the ones at work.

I'm also just starting Schewe's book on RAW processing. (Which made me wonder what motorcycle he rides...)

I find the Adobe profiles to be pretty darned good. I can create a custom profile using the Color Checker and I can see a difference in some colors, but nothing that jumps out at me (calibrated ISP monitor). I think the custom profiles are more useful/needed if you shoot under strange/mixed lighting. Since I don't its not an issue for me. OTOH, I am not a fanatic about color matching given the kind of work I do, all I want is color that looks pleasing in the final analysis. I expect people who do color critical work (products, e,g.) would have a different take on it.

I'm usually outside or under strobes, so mixed/strange lighting is not normally a problem. Occasionally there will be a location portrait, so daylight/strobe mix, but not usually an issue in balancing them.

One project I want to start is small tabletop setups of food, where I feel color accuracy would be critical. That, and more portraits. I really need to take more portraits and I have problems getting skin tones just right.

The Passport (and custom DNG profiles) don't provide 'more accurate color' per se but they do produce a better color appearance in most cases. I've yet to see where a custom DNG profile didn't do a slightly better job in some colors compared to a canned one. You don't need more than two either, unless you are shooting under odd illuminants. I've done a number of workshops where the attendees build their own profile under daylight (takes no time at all) and the exercise has always seemed to show the custom profiles are preferred.

IF you already own a 24 patch Macbeth target, you can do all this for free. Just download the Passport software from X-rite or use the Adobe DNG profile editor.

Something that gives me a good starting point no matter which camera I choose to work with.

I also don't own any 24 patch targets, just some Opteka white balance cards (only so-so on the results of them).

So far, it seems that it is a wise idea. Probably could shoot some film with them in daylight/strobe to also get a general idea for each film type (knowing there is probably variance for age/stock/etc).

If you don't own such a target, go for the Passport which is far more than just a 24 patch Macbeth (although that's in there too). The white balance variation target is really nice if you prefer to WB by seasoning by taste. It's the right size, protected.

If you don't have the ColorChecker yet, you might as well consider a QP-card and software. Some people on this forum have reported good results with it.www.qpcard.se/With film you will need a profile for every combination of film stock and development.

If you go down the road of " accuracy" and produce a good print and then show it to somebody how do they the colours are "accurate" and further more do they care? I am excluding people who have commissioned a photographer to shoot some fashion clothing or similar.

I second what digitaldog is saying. Most of the times custom profiles only give minor improvements but in some situations they come extremely handy. With mixed light and highly saturated colors I often get much better results. Furthermore custom profiles allow more consistent results when shooting with different cameras. Very useful for photo books.

Great photographers who did not profile their cameras, and would not have done so if they could: Weston, Adams, Strand, Atget, Cartier-Bresson, Caponigro, Friedlander, Arbus, etc etc etc.

Great photographers who did profile their cameras:

That's a pretty unfair comparison. While I'll give you Arbus (not always the most technical of photographers), I would say at least Weston, Adams and Stieglitz would have. They approached film and processing with an edge of science and would no doubt have gladly profiled a sensor. In fact, I would think that profiling a sensor would be in the same vain (not exactly the same thing) as testing different films/emulsions and developers.

Everyone else, thank you. I am going to order the Passport tomorrow. Given the sheer amount of cameras, it's probably a good idea.

"In summary, I now regard the xrite Colorchecker Passport as a must-have – a standard part of my field kit. It's a simple as that."

I agree that perfect a perfect profile cannot be expected from a mere 24 color patches and no calibrated light source. But the point IMHO is that with the Passport, or any other such device for that matter, you don't have to rely one this one very specific profile. Just make a profile anytime accurate color reproduction is required and then take the one which gives the best results. Personally, I found that profiles under four different lighting conditions are sufficient for 99.5% of my images: dawn, dusk, sunny, and overcast. I don't do profiles for individual lenses by the way.

"In summary, I now regard the xrite Colorchecker Passport as a must-have – a standard part of my field kit. It's a simple as that."

Unquote

He reckons it is inferior to the Adobe product but a must have? I see a contradiction that put any thoughts of spending £70 out of my mind. I don't really see the point of setting accurate colour and then possibly changing the hue, saturation or contrast of a particular colour in LR/ACR . If you are saving for web then it is a pointless exercise?

Yes, I know. And it is most certainly the father. Do you really think the son, as nice as his photos are, would be in that list?

To me? Yes.Anyway, I just asked that because I found silly questionable to ask about DNG profiling in a list of people with B&W film shooters.Bring one of them into life again and most probably he will embrace both digital and DNG profiling as well.